Memory Beta:Nominations for featured articles/2009 archive
Successful votes Against Their Nature Supports # --8of5 03:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC) # --The Doctor 21:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Objections Comments :First Blood Will Tell issue, done. --8of5 03:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Star Trek: The Original Series Supports # 8of5 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC) # Tim Thomason 04:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC) Objections Comments :I think (hope) I've covered everything now, so this page a pretty comprehensive introduction to every variation of The Original Series... --8of5 16:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Donatra Supports # --8of5 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) # -- Darth Batrus 12:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC) # --Tim Thomason 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Objections Comments :I believe every source we have for Donatra is now covered in detail and would consider this article about as complete and comprehensive as it could get. --8of5 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC) Star Trek: Deep Space Nine Supports # --8of5 18:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC) # --Tim Thomason 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Objections Comments :Another pretty comprehensive guide to a Star Trek series complete. --8of5 18:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC) :: Greatly expanded in such a short length of time.--Tim Thomason 20:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC) HMS Bounty Supports # --8of5 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) # --The Doctor 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) # --Tim Thomason 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Objections Comments :Complete and comprehensive to the best of my knowledge. --8of5 01:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) ::I was gonna flag this one up the other day. A very well done and comprehensive article :) --The Doctor 23:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) :::Surprisingly comprehensive use of the DC Comics history within the article.--Tim Thomason 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Borg Incursion of 2366-2367 Supports # --8of5 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Objections Comments :I think we have here a nice example of the potential in Memory Beta to take something very well known from canon Star Trek and expand it in every direction with additional non-canon information. I've expanded the article with as many relevant sources as I'm aware of. --8of5 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Star Trek: Early Voyages Supports # --8of5 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC) # --Captain MKB 15:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Objections Comments :While idly updating the Early Voyages articles I somewhat accidentally wrote a rather comprehensive article on the series...--8of5 12:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC) ::I left you a note about updating some uniform information, but other than that it's spot on. -- Captain MKB 15:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC) Gods of Night Supports # Captain Savar 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) # Captain MKB 14:08, October 15, 2009 (UTC) # 8of5 20:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC) Comments :I don't know if this counts as a "self-nomination", but I think the article is fairly comprehensive and complete. The only thing I could see being an objection would be the large number of redlinks in the "other" section, but I hope people will add information for those as they see fit. --Captain Savar 20:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) ::Great job. And it's almost there, but there are a couple of gaps; As you noted, there are quite a few red links, and I personally don’t consider a page like this complete until all the links are blue. Also the related stories section is empty, when it should list and detail links to the rest of the trilogy, various TNG relaunch and Titan books, Kobayashi Maru, Ships of the Line and doubtless various other references to all sorts of episodes and novels. --8of5 20:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC) :::Thanks for the input; I'll work on those redlinks. As for the references - as one who hasn't read the ENT or Titan novels, nor many of the relaunch books... not sure what I can do there. I'll consider what I can to add, but maybe I'll have to rely on the rest of the community for those connections. --Captain Savar 03:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC) ::::I don't feel red links have anything to do with the quality of the article -- the question is about whether the summary, references and appendices are fully expanded and in good condition. The color of the links shows deficiency in those other articles, not the novel article itself. -- Captain MKB 14:08, October 15, 2009 (UTC) ::I feel on pages for novels/comics/etc the colour of the links in the reference section is quite important, because these pages mainly exist as a gateway to that information. ::However the red links in the references sections are more obscure subjects so I wouldn't vote against it entirely on that, it's just a criticism. My main issue and the reason I don’t think this can be featured yet is that the "related stories" section is completely empty, on what is a very well connected novel; that's a big gap in the appendices. ::I also have a concern about the format of the summary, I find the paragraphs headed with dates in brackets a bit odd... --8of5 23:38, October 28, 2009 (UTC) :::It's like judging the structural integrity of a building based on whether or not the buildings around it are painted yet or not, it's ridiculous. Nothing to do with the article, and an unnecessary artificial requirement that explains why so few articles get featured here. :::I'd agree with the part about 'related stories' and 'summary' - expand, and streamline. -- Captain MKB 10:01, October 29, 2009 (UTC) :Well, this discussion is only eight months old (or overdue depending on your perspective). It's probably obvious that I haven't had the time to really be on this wiki a lot lately. I think that with a little bit of effort, this could be a good article. In regards to the format of the summary, how would you recommend breaking up the paragraphs of a novel that jumps through time in different timelines? I considered breaking it up into the actual time periods (all the 2160s stuff together, etc), but doing so ruins some of the later plot elements... --Captain Savar 01:28, October 30, 2009 (UTC) ::Hardly Mike, the reason so few articles get featured is because practically nobody nominates them and when they do equally few people bother to vote or discuss them. And I disagree, having a good proportion of the links blue on a featured article is important, these are key access points to the rest of the database, and are meant to show what a complete article is, how well connected that article is is a factor. (but also a minor criticism of this particular article) ::I think the current summary is mostly fine, it's just the odd dates in brackets at the start of paragraph thing I find a bit distracting; perhaps using the ; code to make the dates a sub-title for each section might do the trick? My only other niggle with it is I find having real-world references in the summary section a bit odd too (in reference to even of other episodes/novels but referring to the novel title rather than the in-universe event). ::But yes I agree, over all this article is solid and so so close to being featured! --8of5 13:48, October 31, 2009 (UTC) :::Related stories section now done, summary neatened up a bit, and I added some pictures and an intro. --8of5 20:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC) Category:Memory Beta